Reply to Re: deadlocks involving parallelism

Your name:

Reply:


Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/01/64 11:19

T Dubya (timber_toes@bigfoot.com) writes:
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll give it a try.
> I found a "Best Practices" note in my Microsoft SQL Server 2000
> Administrators Pocket Consultant on page 38 that recommends not
> assigning the higher numbered processors (5,6,7, and 8) to the SQL
> Server. It goes on to explain that Windows assigns deferred process
> calls associated with network interface cards to the highest numbered
> processors. If the system has two NICs, for example, the calls would be
> directed to CPUs 7 and 8. Even though the default installation made
> processors 0 through 7 available to the SQL Server it sounds like the
> recommendation is to only make 0 through 3 available. What do you
> think? Perhaps this would have the same effect as only assigning 4
> processors for parallel execution of queries.

I will have to admit that the discussion went over my head here. If CPU:s
0-3 are the "default CPU" of each physical processor, this seems like
a good choice. I will have to admit that I don't know how processors
are numbered in a multi-processor HT box.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp

[Back to original message]


Удаленная работа для программистов  •  Как заработать на Google AdSense  •  England, UK  •  статьи на английском  •  PHP MySQL CMS Apache Oscommerce  •  Online Business Knowledge Base  •  DVD MP3 AVI MP4 players codecs conversion help
Home  •  Search  •  Site Map  •  Set as Homepage  •  Add to Favourites

Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming

Сайт изготовлен в Студии Валентина Петручека
изготовление и поддержка веб-сайтов, разработка программного обеспечения, поисковая оптимизация